KARACHI: Petition against nazim candidate dismissed
By Our Staff Reporter
KARACHI, Oct 4: The Sindh High Court dismissed on Tuesday a petition against the candidature of federal minister Liaquat Ali Jatoi’s son for the office of district nazim of Dadu.
Petitioner Saeed Ahmed Jamali, Awam Dost candidate for Dadu district nazim’s office, alleged through Advocate Nafees Ahmed Siddiqui that his rival, Karim Ali Jatoi of Dadu Ittehad, was a non-matriculate. He held a diploma from a Dubai aviation college, which was wrongly extended provisional equivalence to higher secondary school (matriculation) certificate by the Inter-Board Committee of Chairmen (IBCC).
The petitioner submitted that he raised the objection before the district returning officer but he accepted Mr Jatoi’s nomination. He pointed out that the district and sessions judge of Kambar was designated as the DRO for Dadu in violation of the prevailing rules and practice of appointing the district and sessions judge of the district concerned. The Dadu DSJ was overlooked to favour of the respondent candidate.
The petition was filed at the SHC’s Larkana bench, which referred it to the principal seat due to an objection raised by the respondent. It was heard at Karachi on Tuesday by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Mohammad Afzal Soomro. The bench heard Advocate Siddiqui for the petitioner and Advocates Abdus Sattar Pirzada and Rana Ikramullah for the respondent for about two hours in chamber.
Mr Jatoi’s counsel questioned the maintainability of the petition. They said the electoral process, which was in its final phase, should be allowed to run its course rather than be disrupted by technical objections. Any illegality or irregularity could be challenged through an election petition before a tribunal of competent jurisdiction.
On points of fact, they asserted that their client had obtained BTech national diploma in aerospace engineering from Dubai Aviation College, which had been accepted as equivalent to matriculation certificate by the IBCC, the body competent to grant equivalence. If the petitioner wanted to challenge the equivalence certificate, he should have joined in the IBCC as a respondent. He had failed to implead the DRO who accepted the respondent’s nomination. The petition could not proceed in the absence of two necessary parties.
Without going into facts, the bench observed that the election process was almost complete and any challenges to it should now be made under the Representation of People Act by way of election petitions. The necessary parties had not been joined and the petition merited dismissal.
